Md. Rafi and Others vs The State of Bihar and Another

Ghanshyam Prasad, J.—Heard. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 19.1.2006 passed by S.D.J.M., Bhojpur at Ara in Complaint Case No.1032(C) of 2005 thereby and there under cognizance u/s 498A I.P.C. along with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners.

It appears that opposite party no.2/ complainant is the wife of petitioner no. 1 and other petitioners are mother and sisters of petitioner no. 1.The opposite party no. 2 on 12.7.2005 filed a complaint case in question before the court of C.J.M., Bhojpur against the petitioners with allegation of demand of dowry and torture. The learned C.J.M. sent the case to the learned S.D.J.M. u/s 192 Cr.P.C. for enquiry and trial. In the meantime, again, the opposite party no. 2 on 27.8.2005 lodged fardbeyan before Khajekalan Police Station, Patna City against the petitioners with same allegation along with some other averments. The police registered Khajekalan P.S. No. 153 of 2005. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioners u/s 498A I.P.C. along with other sections. The admitted position is that in that very case, three witnesses have already been examined on behalf of the prosecution.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that continuance of two criminal cases for the same alleged occurrence is illegal and oppressive. It amounts to double jeopardise of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the court at Ara had no jurisdiction to entertain the case. No part of the occurrence ever took place within Bhojpur district.

This Court has gone through the contents of the complaint petition as well as fardbeyan (Annexure-2). The allegations in both the cases are substantially identical with regard to torture and demand of dowry with some addition of assault in fardbeyan. Therefore, continuance of two cases, one complaint and other police, for the same occurrence at two different districts amounts to abuse of process of the court. Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. also prohibits continuance of both complaint and police case for the same occurrence. In such situation, both the cases shall be tried together as if both the cases were instituted on police report. In this case, both cases are pending at two different districts. The trial in police case has already commenced. Most of the witnesses have been examined whereas in the complaint case in question, trial has not yet been taken up. Thus, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the order in question along with entire criminal proceeding arising out of the aforesaid complaint case is hereby quashed.